Text Size

-

+

reset

The two presidential candidates began getting their games together over the weekend in back-to-back appearances at a two-hour California forum on faith that served as a prelude to the three debates that begin Sept. 26.

By coin flip, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) went first. He was calm and reassuring but revealed a vulnerability by being vague on some issues that were crucial to the audience of 5,000 gathered at Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County. Obama was smooth and confident, but he did not own the night.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was blunt and showed electricity that contrasted with his lethargy at some GOP primary debates. He successfully recycled anecdotes from his many town halls but exposed his own weakness — a blithe carelessness than can give ammo to the other side.

Six moments that will echo in the campaign ahead:

1) McCain jokingly defines “rich” as an income of $5 million, giving instant fodder for a Democratic commercial.

WARREN: OK, on taxes, define ‘rich.’ Everybody talks about taxing the rich … . Give me a number, give me a specific number — where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000?”

MCCAIN: I don't want to take any money from the rich — I want everybody to get rich. (LAUGHTER) … I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth. … So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? (LAUGHTER) But seriously, I don't think you can — I don't think seriously that — the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.”

See also

(Obama’s answer: He got a high-five from Warren for making a joke about the pastor’s royalties from the best-selling “The Purpose Driven Life,” then answered seriously: “You are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living.”)

2) Obama initially punts when asked about the ramifications of abortion.

WARREN: Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with.

MCCAIN: “My greatest moral failing — and I have been a very imperfect person — is the failure of my first marriage. It's my greatest moral failure.

(Obama’s answer: “In my own life, I'd break it up in stages. I had a difficult youth. My father wasn't in the house. I've written about this. You know, there were times where I experimented with drugs. I drank in my teenage years. And what I traced this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me.” That was clever. The opening line of Warren’s book is: “It’s not about you.”)

4) Obama slams the only African-American on the Supreme Court, a conservative who’s anathema to the Democratic base. But he opened a door to critics by mentioning the issue of experience. D’oh!

WARREN: Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?

OBAMA: That's a good one. That's a good one. I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. [APPLAUSE] … I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice [Antonin] Scalia, although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree. He taught at the University of Chicago, as did I in the law school.

(McCain’s answer: “With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stephens. … This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record, of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislating from the bench.”)

Readers' Comments (338)

We now know that John McCain cheated during the forum, just as as George Bush did during his debates with John Kerry. McCain was supposed to be in a "cone of silence" during Senator Obama's session with Pastor Warren so that he would not have advanced warning of the questions. But he broke his word and decided not to follow the rules. This is yet another example of how McCain is just a continuation of Bush.

The "Forum's" greatest gift, for this reader, was the 'seduction' of 'the voice of authority' wrapped in sound bites. When listening carefully to the answers of the candidates, one is not simultaneously critiquing the responses. It is so seductive to believe that when someone speaks from 'authority' that they, like our fathers, know best. Then the seduction continues when other 'authorities' or 'experts' such as the MSM hail Senator McCain's answers as being "concise", "crisp", and "black & white" and his opponent's as "watered down", "murky" and "vague". Regretably, as one reads other 'news' stories, the glow of the seduction of that 'authority' and that 'absolute certainty' starts to fade. The responses that are 'concise' and 'black & white' don't readily apply to our 'shades of gray' world in which we live and must interact. To assist us to find our place in this new globalized world, we require a nuanced thinker who doesn't treat us as children with a father who purports to knows 'best' and who believes we cannot manage more than sound bite answers to the serious questions confronting us at this time. Perhaps the 'most' presumptuous position that any candidate can offer to any American at this time in our history is that we can 'relax' because he has all the answers and can state them in sound bites. Seductive.....perhaps, realistic.....NO.

Intelligent people wouldn't insult their rear ends by using the Kos to wipe it. Don't bash John McCain just because Obama came across as he usually does without a teleprompter~~a stumbling uh-uh-uh and I-I-I person that just looks real bad. Obama is way too obsessed with trying to wear the cult personality that was created for him by Axlerod in an attempt to portray there is a man of substance in that suit. He fails miserably in that endeavor. John McCain doesn't have to put on an act as the substance is there. In a few minutes John McCain will speak at a meeting of vets of foreigh wars in Orlando, FL. Why don't you listen to it?

We now know that John McCain cheated during the forum, just as as George Bush did during his debates with John Kerry. McCain was supposed to be in a "cone of silence" during Senator Obama's session with Pastor Warren so that he would not have advanced warning of the questions. But he broke his word and decided not to follow the rules. This is yet another example of how McCain is just a continuation of Bush.

Bull. Even the liberal owned CNN listened as Rick Warren said McCain was a bit late getting to the building. John McCain was in an automobile with secret service until he got to the building. I understand liberals will spread any stories to try and cover up how poorly Obama did in that civil forum. Like a cat covering pooh in a sandbox.

Ok, I recognize it is not a nice question to ask of a nice person, but is it not the same sort of assumption she made about John McCain on Saturday night?

"He was so well prepared."

As if he could have ONLY been well prepared - by "cheating"?

Camp McCain has every right to hit back as hard as possible against NBC News today. Of course any network, or conglomerate that employs Keith Olbermann deserves to be laughed out of the ranks of journalism all together.

I must confess, I have been spending an awful lot of time thinking about Barack Obama. I hasten to add that it’s not, as is the case with Chris Matthews, because the Senator sends shivers up my leg. Rather, it’s because I simply can’t figure out how he’s managed to convince so many people that he should be the President of the United States. It’s a lot like trying to figure out how Las Vegas magicians make lions and tigers disappear.

Camp McCain has every right to hit back as hard as possible against NBC News today. Of course any network, or conglomerate that employs Keith Olbermann deserves to be laughed out of the ranks of journalism all together.

Liberal owned media are doing all they can to try and blow the stink off Obama. It's not working. At this very moment, McCain is speaking to the vets of foreign wars. It's on Fox News. He's doing very well.

I think Obama put in a terrific peformance at the forum; he came accross as thoughtful, intelligent, and sincere. Pastor Warren was clearly moved by many of Obama's responses, as I was the larger television audience I suspect. But we should not overlook the fact that McCain cheated. Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview, and hence, probably had advanced warning of the questions. It seems that Republicans cannot win a debate with the Democrats without some unfair advantage. Americans deserve better.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was blunt and showed electricity that contrasted with his lethargy at some GOP primary debates. He successfully recycled anecdotes from his many town halls, but exposed his own weakness — a blithe carelessness than can give ammo to the other side.

I strongly object to the above description of Sen. John McCain's performance during the discussion Saturday night -

His comments were far from 'blunt' or careless; John's comments were honest and to the point; demonstrating his Wisdom, knowledge, experience, Patriotism and courage as a leader - Exactly what America needs in a President -

Obama, on the other hand, showed very little confidence by studdering, stammering, saying nothing while trying to make up his answers as he went along - His performance was pathetic no matter how his clan and the MSM attempt to portray him - He fell flat on his face, and the American people witnessed it -

McCain far out-shown Obama in the discussion - one can certainly see why Obama and clan has been afraid to debate John McCain face to face in a townhall setting - Plus, it now comes out that Rick Warren wanted both men on stage together to debate each other face to face, but the Obama clan refused - and this is the person the dems/libs/socialists want for POTUS?? - Obama is about as scary as they come - Be afraid, Be Very Afraid !!

I disagree that Obama punted on the abortion question. He said, very clearly, "One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they-- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members." (http://www.clipsandcomment.co... /> And I disagree strongly with your statement that McCain evidenced a new willingness to talk about the details of his years as a POW. I have personally heard him tell his cross in the sand story many times. As Paul Waldman pointed out in the American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/cs/ar... McCain has been referring to his service and years as a POW at least since his first run for Congress in 1982, when he responded to his opponent's charge that McCain was a carpetbagger this way: military personnel move around a lot and "the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi." During the Keating savings and loan scandal, McCain told reporters questioning him about his role, "Even the Vietnamese didn't question my ethics." When he delivered the nomination speech for Bob Dole at the 1996 Republican Convention, McCain offered this personal endorsement: "A long time ago, in another walk of life, I was deprived of my liberty. The brave men I served with there wanted nothing more than to keep faith with our country, and for our country to keep faith with us. When the United States Senate tried to cut off funding for the war in Vietnam before America's prisoners of war were released, Bob Dole led the opposition. For seven weeks he forcefully debated the measure, and succeeded in preventing America from leaving the field while so many of her sons remained the prisoners of our enemies. All the while he waged that debate, Bob Dole wore a POW bracelet that bore my name. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/c... There are certainly more contemporaneous examples of McCain's references to his POW experience, and even when he doesn't bring it up, it's the way he's identified in the media. And while it's entirely appropriate to honor John McCain for his service and respect his ordeal as a POW 35 years ago, it's simply inaccurate to claim that he's been too modest to discuss it until now.

To be perfectly honest, I invariably feel that way about the candidates the Democrats try to foist off on us. But, as a rule, guys like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry are just typical party hacks. But at least none of them attended a racist church, they didn’t associate with known terrorists and they usually didn’t display their contempt for national symbols and the U.S. military quite so blatantly.

Liberals have tried to convince us that Obama is "brilliant". I find that odd because he has said that there are 57 states, that JFK got the Russians to remove their missiles from Cuba by sitting down and chatting with Khrushchev, and that Iran doesn’t really constitute an actual threat because they don’t spend as much money on weaponry as we do. Funny, but “brilliant” isn’t the first word that comes to mind. But what do liberals know?

I think Obama put in a terrific peformance at the forum; he came accross as thoughtful, intelligent, and sincere.

Obama's discomfort and uh-uh's at many of the questions didn't bother you? As far as the candidates having proir knowledge to any questions, Rick Warren said both candidates had been informed as to the themes of the questions. He also said that he had supplied Obama with one of the questions (the one about which supreme court judge he would not have appointed). Obama showed his liberal bias when he said "Clarence Thomas". Thomas is a conservative. McCain had not been supplied with that question before speaking at the forum. Obama was very vague in most of his answers just as he is most vague about what he means by "change". You know this is the truth. Liberals are in forums now trying to do damage control. It's just not going to work.

I think it is blatantly clear who obama panders to in his responses, especially in the abortion response. I was privy to a speech given by babe buchanan in new hampshire. She spoke to college students, like myself, about the importance of carefully choosing a candidate. Her biggest peice of advice went something like this....... " choose a candidate that clearly expresses his/her beliefs with conviction, a candidate that has similar or the same beliefs as you. Even if you disagree on some topics if there is one that you and your candidate feel passionately about, passionate enough that you would be willing to hammer away at itdespite the prospect of an election loss, at lease if he/she loses you can leave the election with dignity."..... Mccain answered the abortion question directly. Obama on the other hand thought it was more PC to broadly talk about the topic because he didnt want to offend anyone. Lets vote intelligently america. Im not telling you who to vote for. just do your homework and do not fall prey to hype on either side. Our country is too precious for that

"John McCain was in an automobile with secret service until he got to the building." SO HE HAD ACCESS THE BEST COMMUNICATION DEVICES OUT THERE ... and therefore the questions, Obama's responses and time to formulate his answers. With today's techonlogy he could have been actually watching it. The point is ... Warren LIED - when he said where McCain was ... and McCain went along with the charade.

4) Obama slams the only African-American on the Supreme Court, a conservative who?s anathema to the Democratic base. But he opened a door to critics by mentioning the issue of experience. D?oh! WARREN: ?Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?? OBAMA: ?That's a good one. That's a good one. I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. [APPLAUSE] ? I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice [Antonin] Scalia, although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree. He taught at the University of Chicago, as did I in the law school.? What the #$%^&*( are you talking about. Where in his above answer does he mention inexperience. It talks about his thinking abilities. This lie is really bouncing around the echo chamber.

If you're going to accuse Obama of "studdering," at least figure out how to spell it. On the "when does a baby get human rights" question: The subtle phrasing in the question skews it. In Warren World, a blastocyst is immediately a "baby," not an embryo or a fetus. Obama needs to stop calling McCain an honorable man and a patriot, because he is neither.

The biggest story and LIE coming from Rick's interview on Saturday is when he asked each candidate...." Name a situation where you went against your own party to reach across party lines". Obama mentioned his as being when he agreed to work with Senator McCain on campaign ethics and reform. The LIE that our corrupt liberal wolfpack press is covering up is the FACT that, YES Obama did intially cross party lines to work on this bill. BUT Obama later withdrew his support to work together with McCain on this very bill....................................

Byron York explains it this way: McCain bested Obama again when Warren asked for an example of a time in which he “went against party loyalty and maybe even against your own best interest for the good of America.”

“Well, I’ll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on,” Obama said, “and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.” But it turned out that was an issue on which Obama had briefly allied with McCain and then jumped back to the Democratic mother ship, causing McCain to write Obama an angry note about the abandonment of what had been a principled position. As far as bucking your party goes, it wasn’t very big stuff.

The FACTS of this are very clear yet Politico never mentions it in this story. And Politico has yet to mention it in any of their "stories" regarding the Warren interviews on Saturday. ......................WHY ? Jimmy V. why can't your staff of liberal jounalist report the news to the American people?

The FACT is again that Obama never fully supported the issue that he gave as his reply to Rick Warrens question on "reaching across party lines". Obama LIED and once again our corrupt liberal wolfpack press censors and covers their hero, Obama. Somebody tell me where I wrong?

Politico this Obama LIE might not "matter" to you but it matters to the vast number of Americans that are trying to pick the best candidate. Politico you lost more "creditability" with this story...................................very sad indeed.